AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc 130V Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc 130V Mobile. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs, with no nearest rivals listed. This absence of measured data means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences recorded in the database.

The raw compute figures show a substantial gap. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile delivers 3.315 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 4.6 times the 716.8 GFLOPS recorded for the AMD Radeon 820M. In FP16 workloads, the Intel part reaches 6.630 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD part manages 716.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The texture rate tells a similar story: Intel records 103.6 GTexel/s against AMD's 22.40 GTexel/s, a 4.6 times advantage. Pixel throughput favors Intel at 51.80 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s, again a 4.6 times margin.

These ratios are consistent across every measured throughput metric, which suggests a fundamental difference in execution resource scaling rather than clock speed alone. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 28 render output units. The AMD Radeon 820M uses 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The Intel device has 7 ray tracing cores against AMD's 2. Clock behavior differs as well: AMD boosts to 2800 MHz from a 400 MHz base, while Intel boosts to 1850 MHz from a 300 MHz base. Despite the lower boost clock, Intel's wider execution array produces the higher throughput.

The recorded power envelopes differ notably. The AMD Radeon 820M carries a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile carries a 37 W TDP. That 22 W difference corresponds to the wider execution resources and higher throughput figures. The process technology also differs: AMD uses a 4 nm node, Intel uses a 3 nm node, both from TSMC. The Intel die measures 172 mm², while the AMD die size is recorded as unknown.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile records 3.315 TFLOPS, which is 4.6 times the 716.8 GFLOPS of the AMD Radeon 820M.

Q: How do the ray tracing capabilities compare?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile includes 7 ray tracing cores, while the AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M boosts to 2800 MHz from a base of 400 MHz. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile boosts to 1850 MHz from a base of 300 MHz.

Q: Which GPU uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses a 3 nm process, while the AMD Radeon 820M uses a 4 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a 37 W TDP, which is 22 W higher than the 15 W TDP of the AMD Radeon 820M.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, belonging to the Navi III IGP generation, built on the Krackan Point 2 chip. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses the Xe2-LPG architecture, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M generation, built on the Lunar Lake chip. These are fundamentally different GPU designs with different execution resource organization.

The shading unit count shows the most significant architectural divergence. Intel packs 896 shading units into the Arc 130V, while AMD uses 128 in the Radeon 820M. That 7 times difference in shading resources explains the throughput gap. The texture mapping units follow at 56 versus 8, and render output units at 28 versus 4. The ray tracing core count also differs: 7 on the Intel side, 2 on the AMD side.

Both architectures support the same API feature set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means games and applications that require these APIs will run on either GPU, though the execution efficiency will differ based on the underlying hardware design.

The FP16 processing ratio reveals an architectural difference. The AMD Radeon 820M processes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it delivers the same 716.8 GFLOPS for both formats. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile processes FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 6.630 TFLOPS, double its FP32 rate. This indicates the Intel architecture has dedicated or doubled FP16 throughput paths that AMD's design lacks.

The process nodes differ by one generation step. AMD uses TSMC's 4 nm process, Intel uses TSMC's 3 nm process. The Intel die size is recorded at 172 mm², while the AMD die size is unknown in the database. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGPs) with no separate slot width beyond IGP designation.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Radeon 820M has a 400 MHz base clock and 2800 MHz boost clock. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a 300 MHz base clock and 1850 MHz boost clock. Despite the lower clocks, Intel achieves higher throughput due to the wider execution resources.

Shading units: 128 on AMD, 896 on Intel. Texture mapping units: 8 on AMD, 56 on Intel. Render output units: 4 on AMD, 28 on Intel. Ray tracing cores: 2 on AMD, 7 on Intel. These resource differences are the primary drivers of the performance gap.

Pixel rate: 11.20 GPixel/s on AMD, 51.80 GPixel/s on Intel. Texture rate: 22.40 GTexel/s on AMD, 103.6 GTexel/s on Intel. FP32: 716.8 GFLOPS on AMD, 3.315 TFLOPS on Intel. FP16: 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) on AMD, 6.630 TFLOPS (2:1) on Intel.

TDP: 15 W on AMD, 37 W on Intel. Process node: 4 nm on AMD, 3 nm on Intel. Die size: unknown on AMD, 172 mm² on Intel. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 on AMD, IGP on Intel.

The release dates differ: the Intel Arc 130V Mobile was released on 2024-09-23, the AMD Radeon 820M on 2025-02-28. The AMD predecessor is recorded as Navi II IGP, the Intel predecessor as HD Graphics-M. Neither has a recorded successor or launch MSRP.

Memory configuration is identical in type: both use System Shared memory with System Shared size, bus width, and bandwidth described as System Dependent. Display outputs are also identical: Portable Device Dependent for both. Neither has a suggested PSU, and both use IGP slot width.

The Verdict

The data shows a decisive throughput advantage for the Intel Arc 130V Mobile across every measured performance metric. The 4.6 times advantage in FP32, texture rate, and pixel rate comes from the 7 times larger shading unit count and correspondingly larger TMU and ROP counts. The Intel GPU also has 3.5 times more ray tracing cores and supports doubled FP16 throughput.

The AMD Radeon 820M counters with a significantly lower 15 W TDP, which is 22 W less than the Intel part's 37 W TDP. The AMD GPU also boosts to 2800 MHz, which is 950 MHz higher than the Intel boost clock. However, the higher clock does not compensate for the smaller execution array. The AMD GPU uses a 4 nm process, while Intel uses a 3 nm process, both from TSMC.

For workloads that depend on raw shader throughput, texture filtering, pixel fill, or ray tracing, the Intel Arc 130V Mobile is the clear choice based on the recorded specifications. The 3.315 TFLOPS FP32 figure and 103.6 GTexel/s texture rate place it in a different performance class than the 716.8 GFLOPS and 22.40 GTexel/s of the AMD part.

For workloads constrained by power draw, the AMD Radeon 820M at 15 W TDP offers a lower power envelope. The database does not record any benchmark scores for either GPU, so real-world application performance cannot be confirmed from the available data. The specification analysis, however, points to Intel as the higher-performance option.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins in compute-heavy scenarios. The 3.315 TFLOPS FP32 throughput supports general shader workloads, while the 6.630 TFLOPS FP16 throughput with a 2:1 ratio benefits applications that use half-precision math. The 103.6 GTexel/s texture rate and 51.80 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate strong fill-rate performance for texture-bound and resolution-bound rendering.

The Intel part also wins in ray tracing scenarios with 7 ray tracing cores versus 2 on the AMD side. The 172 mm² die size on a 3 nm process suggests a larger, more complex implementation that can house the additional execution resources.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in power-constrained scenarios. The 15 W TDP is less than half of the Intel part's 37 W TDP. For thin-and-light portable devices where thermal headroom is limited, the lower power draw is a measurable advantage. The 2800 MHz boost clock also indicates the AMD part can reach higher frequencies when power allows.

The AMD part uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part is recorded as IGP. Both share the same memory architecture (System Shared, System Dependent bandwidth) and the same API support. The AMD part was released later (2025-02-28 versus 2024-09-23), which may matter for platform availability, though the database records no benchmark evidence to confirm any real-world performance difference.

The recorded data shows no wins for either GPU in direct head-to-head benchmarks, as no such benchmarks exist in the database. The specification comparison, however, consistently favors the Intel Arc 130V Mobile for performance-oriented tasks and the AMD Radeon 820M for power-sensitive integration.